For all the Bigoted Bakers, Fanatical Florists and Pharisee Photographers

[Pop23]

I am just wondering how far you are willing to take your strict adherence to the Bible in doing your business.

Okay. So you don't want to provide wedding services to gay folks because Leviticus 18:22 says so.

Well, why stop there?

The Bible also says that adultery and sex before marriage are wrong. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 is very clear a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night shall be stoned. Admittedly, it might be a bit harsh to determine who is a virgin, but you could at least eliminate the 50% of women who live with their boyfriends before marriage.

Okay, next up, we need to talk about what you are wearing, Girlfriend. Deuteronomy 22:5 says that a woman shall not wear clothing meant for a man. That means all you ladies who wear slacks and jeans and pantsuits! Clearly, a truly biblical business can't work for such sinners!

and if that's too "Old Testament" for you, 1 Timothy 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:3 both state women should wear neither braids nor jewelry. so if they plan to wear any of that at their wedding, clearly it would offend your magic fairy in the sky to no end.

Hey, and Heaven forbid that they be one of those "liberated" women who write their own vows at a wedding.

Ephesians 5:22-24 says that they should totally submit to their husbands, and 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 says they should keep their mouths shut in church.

So really, now that you've eliminated about 99% of your potential customers, you can no doubt say that your objections to serving gays was really about the Bible... because you are also following all the other rules the bible sets down.

I'm wondering how far you're willing to take your strict adherence to public accomodations laws?

Should gender separated showers/lockers be outlawed now because the laws appear to forbid them?

As we all know, a lesbian woman is equally attracted to women as a male, one, the lesbian disrobes I'm the locker room and nothing happens, the other the male, gets arrested?

Lesbian couples now have greater access under the law, to public accomodations then straight couples?

A paradox.

What's more important? Cake or Cleanliness?

 

[paddymurphy]

I am just wondering how far you are willing to take your strict adherence to the Bible in doing your business.

Okay. So you don't want to provide wedding services to gay folks because Leviticus 18:22 says so.

Well, why stop there?

The Bible also says that adultery and sex before marriage are wrong. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 is very clear a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night shall be stoned. Admittedly, it might be a bit harsh to determine who is a virgin, but you could at least eliminate the 50% of women who live with their boyfriends before marriage.

Okay, next up, we need to talk about what you are wearing, Girlfriend. Deuteronomy 22:5 says that a woman shall not wear clothing meant for a man. That means all you ladies who wear slacks and jeans and pantsuits! Clearly, a truly biblical business can't work for such sinners!

and if that's too "Old Testament" for you, 1 Timothy 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:3 both state women should wear neither braids nor jewelry. so if they plan to wear any of that at their wedding, clearly it would offend your magic fairy in the sky to no end.

Hey, and Heaven forbid that they be one of those "liberated" women who write their own vows at a wedding.

Ephesians 5:22-24 says that they should totally submit to their husbands, and 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 says they should keep their mouths shut in church.

So really, now that you've eliminated about 99% of your potential customers, you can no doubt say that your objections to serving gays was really about the Bible... because you are also following all the other rules the bible sets down.

Um, how about they are willing to take it as far as the 1st Amendment??????

You know that freedom of religion part of the Constitution has been around a LOT longer than this bad ruling by the USSC.

And that freedom of religion has never allowed a citizen to simply refuse to follow a law that applies to everyone simply by saying that it violates their faith. Even under the broader test used before Unemployment Division v. Smith, the burden had to be "significant.
"After Sherbert and Yoder, the Court applied the religious-exemption doctrine by examining two questions: Has the government significantly burdened a sincerely motivated religious practice? If so, is the burden justified by a compelling state interest? Increasingly, however, the Court narrowed the concept of a “significant burden” to religion and in a series of decisions throughout the 1980s, the Court rejected many free- exercise claims on this basis. The Court also became more willing to label state interests as “compelling” in cases where religious practice was significantly burdened by a general law."

Well the court is wrong, the Constitution is right.

Wouldn't be the first time the court ignored the Constitution to suit their own biases and agendas.

Where does religious freedom end, and secular law take over?

At the 1ST AMENDMENT, which says you can't pass a law restricting the freedom of religion.

And the law banning discrimination against gay people was not passed to restrict freedom of religion. It was passed to ban discrimination.

 

[teapartysamurai]

I am just wondering how far you are willing to take your strict adherence to the Bible in doing your business.

Okay. So you don't want to provide wedding services to gay folks because Leviticus 18:22 says so.

Well, why stop there?

The Bible also says that adultery and sex before marriage are wrong. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 is very clear a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night shall be stoned. Admittedly, it might be a bit harsh to determine who is a virgin, but you could at least eliminate the 50% of women who live with their boyfriends before marriage.

Okay, next up, we need to talk about what you are wearing, Girlfriend. Deuteronomy 22:5 says that a woman shall not wear clothing meant for a man. That means all you ladies who wear slacks and jeans and pantsuits! Clearly, a truly biblical business can't work for such sinners!

and if that's too "Old Testament" for you, 1 Timothy 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:3 both state women should wear neither braids nor jewelry. so if they plan to wear any of that at their wedding, clearly it would offend your magic fairy in the sky to no end.

Hey, and Heaven forbid that they be one of those "liberated" women who write their own vows at a wedding.

Ephesians 5:22-24 says that they should totally submit to their husbands, and 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 says they should keep their mouths shut in church.

So really, now that you've eliminated about 99% of your potential customers, you can no doubt say that your objections to serving gays was really about the Bible... because you are also following all the other rules the bible sets down.

Um, how about they are willing to take it as far as the 1st Amendment??????

You know that freedom of religion part of the Constitution has been around a LOT longer than this bad ruling by the USSC.

Why isn't polygamy legal then?

Rush said you libs were not going to be happy with gay marriage. Polygamy was next!

Thanks for proving him right!

Learn to read.

Polygamy was a core religious belief of the Mormon church.

Why wasn't it protected by the 1st Amendment?

See if you can give a straight answer to that question. I'm betting you can't.

The Supreme Court already did:

"The first Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of free exercise was Reynolds v. U.S. (1878), in which the Court upheld a federal law banning polygamy over objections by Mormons who claimed that the practice was their religious duty. The Court in Reynolds distinguished between religious belief and religious conduct or action, stating that Congress was “deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive to good order.” Recognizing the religious defense, the Court said, would “permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.” While the government could not punish citizens because of their religious beliefs, it could regulate religiously motivated conduct, provided that it had a rational basis for doing so. This “rational basis test” became the standard for determining whether a law that impinged on a religious practice violated the free-exercise clause. As that standard was easy for the government to satisfy, for almost a century the courts generally rejected religious-freedom claims against generally applicable laws."
Free-exercise clause overview First Amendment Center news commentary analysis on free speech press religion assembly petition

You can cite as many court cases as you want.

I can also bring up the many BAD decisions by the court like Separate but Equal, that blacks aren't citizens, or how about Roe V. Wade.

Or Bush v. Gore, that liberals hate.

You can cite as many court cases as you want.

They don't take precedent over the 1st Amendment.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I am just wondering how far you are willing to take your strict adherence to the Bible in doing your business.

Okay. So you don't want to provide wedding services to gay folks because Leviticus 18:22 says so.

Well, why stop there?

The Bible also says that adultery and sex before marriage are wrong. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 is very clear a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night shall be stoned. Admittedly, it might be a bit harsh to determine who is a virgin, but you could at least eliminate the 50% of women who live with their boyfriends before marriage.

Okay, next up, we need to talk about what you are wearing, Girlfriend. Deuteronomy 22:5 says that a woman shall not wear clothing meant for a man. That means all you ladies who wear slacks and jeans and pantsuits! Clearly, a truly biblical business can't work for such sinners!

and if that's too "Old Testament" for you, 1 Timothy 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:3 both state women should wear neither braids nor jewelry. so if they plan to wear any of that at their wedding, clearly it would offend your magic fairy in the sky to no end.

Hey, and Heaven forbid that they be one of those "liberated" women who write their own vows at a wedding.

Ephesians 5:22-24 says that they should totally submit to their husbands, and 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 says they should keep their mouths shut in church.

So really, now that you've eliminated about 99% of your potential customers, you can no doubt say that your objections to serving gays was really about the Bible... because you are also following all the other rules the bible sets down.

Um, how about they are willing to take it as far as the 1st Amendment??????

You know that freedom of religion part of the Constitution has been around a LOT longer than this bad ruling by the USSC.

And that freedom of religion has never allowed a citizen to simply refuse to follow a law that applies to everyone simply by saying that it violates their faith. Even under the broader test used before Unemployment Division v. Smith, the burden had to be "significant.
"After Sherbert and Yoder, the Court applied the religious-exemption doctrine by examining two questions: Has the government significantly burdened a sincerely motivated religious practice? If so, is the burden justified by a compelling state interest? Increasingly, however, the Court narrowed the concept of a “significant burden” to religion and in a series of decisions throughout the 1980s, the Court rejected many free- exercise claims on this basis. The Court also became more willing to label state interests as “compelling” in cases where religious practice was significantly burdened by a general law."

Well the court is wrong, the Constitution is right.

Wouldn't be the first time the court ignored the Constitution to suit their own biases and agendas.

Where does religious freedom end, and secular law take over?

At the 1ST AMENDMENT, which says you can't pass a law restricting the freedom of religion.

So the Mormon's religious belief in polygamy should never have been infringed upon,

nor should the Islamic belief in polygamy?

Eh?

 

[teapartysamurai]

Um, how about they are willing to take it as far as the 1st Amendment??????

You know that freedom of religion part of the Constitution has been around a LOT longer than this bad ruling by the USSC.

And that freedom of religion has never allowed a citizen to simply refuse to follow a law that applies to everyone simply by saying that it violates their faith. Even under the broader test used before Unemployment Division v. Smith, the burden had to be "significant.
"After Sherbert and Yoder, the Court applied the religious-exemption doctrine by examining two questions: Has the government significantly burdened a sincerely motivated religious practice? If so, is the burden justified by a compelling state interest? Increasingly, however, the Court narrowed the concept of a “significant burden” to religion and in a series of decisions throughout the 1980s, the Court rejected many free- exercise claims on this basis. The Court also became more willing to label state interests as “compelling” in cases where religious practice was significantly burdened by a general law."

Well the court is wrong, the Constitution is right.

Wouldn't be the first time the court ignored the Constitution to suit their own biases and agendas.

Where does religious freedom end, and secular law take over?

At the 1ST AMENDMENT, which says you can't pass a law restricting the freedom of religion.

And the law banning discrimination against gay people was not passed to restrict freedom of religion. It was passed to ban discrimination.

How about Christians being discriminated against if they stand by their beliefs in viloation of the 1st Amendment?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Um, how about they are willing to take it as far as the 1st Amendment??????

You know that freedom of religion part of the Constitution has been around a LOT longer than this bad ruling by the USSC.

Why isn't polygamy legal then?

Rush said you libs were not going to be happy with gay marriage. Polygamy was next!

Thanks for proving him right!

Learn to read.

Polygamy was a core religious belief of the Mormon church.

Why wasn't it protected by the 1st Amendment?

See if you can give a straight answer to that question. I'm betting you can't.

The Supreme Court already did:

"The first Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of free exercise was Reynolds v. U.S. (1878), in which the Court upheld a federal law banning polygamy over objections by Mormons who claimed that the practice was their religious duty. The Court in Reynolds distinguished between religious belief and religious conduct or action, stating that Congress was “deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive to good order.” Recognizing the religious defense, the Court said, would “permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.” While the government could not punish citizens because of their religious beliefs, it could regulate religiously motivated conduct, provided that it had a rational basis for doing so. This “rational basis test” became the standard for determining whether a law that impinged on a religious practice violated the free-exercise clause. As that standard was easy for the government to satisfy, for almost a century the courts generally rejected religious-freedom claims against generally applicable laws."
Free-exercise clause overview First Amendment Center news commentary analysis on free speech press religion assembly petition

You can cite as many court cases as you want.

I can also bring up the man BAD decisions by the court like Separate but Equal, that blacks aren't citizens, or how about Roe V. Wade.

Or Bush v. Gore, that liberals hate.

You can cite as many court cases as you want.

They don't take precedent over the 1st Amendment.

They do when they become case law.

Why are you dodging the polygamy question? Are you picking and choosing which religious beliefs are protected by the first amendment?

 

[paddymurphy]

Um, how about they are willing to take it as far as the 1st Amendment??????

You know that freedom of religion part of the Constitution has been around a LOT longer than this bad ruling by the USSC.

Why isn't polygamy legal then?

Rush said you libs were not going to be happy with gay marriage. Polygamy was next!

Thanks for proving him right!

Learn to read.

Polygamy was a core religious belief of the Mormon church.

Why wasn't it protected by the 1st Amendment?

See if you can give a straight answer to that question. I'm betting you can't.

The Supreme Court already did:

"The first Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of free exercise was Reynolds v. U.S. (1878), in which the Court upheld a federal law banning polygamy over objections by Mormons who claimed that the practice was their religious duty. The Court in Reynolds distinguished between religious belief and religious conduct or action, stating that Congress was “deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive to good order.” Recognizing the religious defense, the Court said, would “permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.” While the government could not punish citizens because of their religious beliefs, it could regulate religiously motivated conduct, provided that it had a rational basis for doing so. This “rational basis test” became the standard for determining whether a law that impinged on a religious practice violated the free-exercise clause. As that standard was easy for the government to satisfy, for almost a century the courts generally rejected religious-freedom claims against generally applicable laws."
Free-exercise clause overview First Amendment Center news commentary analysis on free speech press religion assembly petition

You can cite as many court cases as you want.

I can also bring up the man BAD decisions by the court like Separate but Equal, that blacks aren't citizens, or how about Roe V. Wade.

Or Bush v. Gore, that liberals hate.

You can cite as many court cases as you want.

They don't take precedent over the 1st Amendment.

They establish First Amendment precedent, dumbass. The Supreme Court determines when a law violates the First Amendment. The First Amendment is not absolute. It would not protect a radical Muslim who killed his daughter because she abandoned her faith because he did so based on his view of his religious obligation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And that freedom of religion has never allowed a citizen to simply refuse to follow a law that applies to everyone simply by saying that it violates their faith. Even under the broader test used before Unemployment Division v. Smith, the burden had to be "significant.
"After Sherbert and Yoder, the Court applied the religious-exemption doctrine by examining two questions: Has the government significantly burdened a sincerely motivated religious practice? If so, is the burden justified by a compelling state interest? Increasingly, however, the Court narrowed the concept of a “significant burden” to religion and in a series of decisions throughout the 1980s, the Court rejected many free- exercise claims on this basis. The Court also became more willing to label state interests as “compelling” in cases where religious practice was significantly burdened by a general law."

Well the court is wrong, the Constitution is right.

Wouldn't be the first time the court ignored the Constitution to suit their own biases and agendas.

Where does religious freedom end, and secular law take over?

At the 1ST AMENDMENT, which says you can't pass a law restricting the freedom of religion.

And the law banning discrimination against gay people was not passed to restrict freedom of religion. It was passed to ban discrimination.

How about Christians being discriminated against if they stand by their beliefs in viloation of the 1st Amendment?

The 1st Amendment only protects some religious practices.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Um, how about they are willing to take it as far as the 1st Amendment??????

You know that freedom of religion part of the Constitution has been around a LOT longer than this bad ruling by the USSC.

And that freedom of religion has never allowed a citizen to simply refuse to follow a law that applies to everyone simply by saying that it violates their faith. Even under the broader test used before Unemployment Division v. Smith, the burden had to be "significant.
"After Sherbert and Yoder, the Court applied the religious-exemption doctrine by examining two questions: Has the government significantly burdened a sincerely motivated religious practice? If so, is the burden justified by a compelling state interest? Increasingly, however, the Court narrowed the concept of a “significant burden” to religion and in a series of decisions throughout the 1980s, the Court rejected many free- exercise claims on this basis. The Court also became more willing to label state interests as “compelling” in cases where religious practice was significantly burdened by a general law."

Well the court is wrong, the Constitution is right.

Wouldn't be the first time the court ignored the Constitution to suit their own biases and agendas.

Where does religious freedom end, and secular law take over?

At the 1ST AMENDMENT, which says you can't pass a law restricting the freedom of religion.

So the Mormon's religious belief in polygamy should never have been infringed upon,

nor should the Islamic belief in polygamy?

Eh?

I never said that.

I SAID that just because YOU think the 1st Amendment has already been violated, it doesn't justify violating it again!

 

[paddymurphy]

And that freedom of religion has never allowed a citizen to simply refuse to follow a law that applies to everyone simply by saying that it violates their faith. Even under the broader test used before Unemployment Division v. Smith, the burden had to be "significant.
"After Sherbert and Yoder, the Court applied the religious-exemption doctrine by examining two questions: Has the government significantly burdened a sincerely motivated religious practice? If so, is the burden justified by a compelling state interest? Increasingly, however, the Court narrowed the concept of a “significant burden” to religion and in a series of decisions throughout the 1980s, the Court rejected many free- exercise claims on this basis. The Court also became more willing to label state interests as “compelling” in cases where religious practice was significantly burdened by a general law."

Well the court is wrong, the Constitution is right.

Wouldn't be the first time the court ignored the Constitution to suit their own biases and agendas.

Where does religious freedom end, and secular law take over?

At the 1ST AMENDMENT, which says you can't pass a law restricting the freedom of religion.

And the law banning discrimination against gay people was not passed to restrict freedom of religion. It was passed to ban discrimination.

How about Christians being discriminated against if they stand by their beliefs in viloation of the 1st Amendment?

They are not being discriminated against. They are being treated just like everyone else and are required to follow a law that applies to everyone equally. You want everyone but Christians to be discriminated against by allows Christians to not follow a law everyone else must follow.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Why isn't polygamy legal then?

Rush said you libs were not going to be happy with gay marriage. Polygamy was next!

Thanks for proving him right!

Learn to read.

Polygamy was a core religious belief of the Mormon church.

Why wasn't it protected by the 1st Amendment?

See if you can give a straight answer to that question. I'm betting you can't.

The Supreme Court already did:

"The first Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of free exercise was Reynolds v. U.S. (1878), in which the Court upheld a federal law banning polygamy over objections by Mormons who claimed that the practice was their religious duty. The Court in Reynolds distinguished between religious belief and religious conduct or action, stating that Congress was “deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive to good order.” Recognizing the religious defense, the Court said, would “permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.” While the government could not punish citizens because of their religious beliefs, it could regulate religiously motivated conduct, provided that it had a rational basis for doing so. This “rational basis test” became the standard for determining whether a law that impinged on a religious practice violated the free-exercise clause. As that standard was easy for the government to satisfy, for almost a century the courts generally rejected religious-freedom claims against generally applicable laws."
Free-exercise clause overview First Amendment Center news commentary analysis on free speech press religion assembly petition

You can cite as many court cases as you want.

I can also bring up the man BAD decisions by the court like Separate but Equal, that blacks aren't citizens, or how about Roe V. Wade.

Or Bush v. Gore, that liberals hate.

You can cite as many court cases as you want.

They don't take precedent over the 1st Amendment.

They establish First Amendment precedent, dumbass. The Supreme Court determines when a law violates the First Amendment. The First Amendment is not absolute. It would not protect a radical Muslim who killed his daughter because she abandoned her faith because he did so based on his view of his religious obligation.

No, the USSC doesn't, according to the Constitution.

That was Madison vs. Marbury and the USSC just did a power grab in claiming that last word on the Constitution for themselves.

Another example of bad law by passed by an out of control USSC.

It should have been resisted a lontg time ago.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Well the court is wrong, the Constitution is right.

Wouldn't be the first time the court ignored the Constitution to suit their own biases and agendas.

Where does religious freedom end, and secular law take over?

At the 1ST AMENDMENT, which says you can't pass a law restricting the freedom of religion.

And the law banning discrimination against gay people was not passed to restrict freedom of religion. It was passed to ban discrimination.

How about Christians being discriminated against if they stand by their beliefs in viloation of the 1st Amendment?

They are not being discriminated against. They are being treated just like everyone else and are required to follow a law that applies to everyone equally. You want everyone but Christians to be discriminated against by allows Christians to not follow a law everyone else must follow.

When they are being fined for practicing their religion in accordance with the 1st Amendment, then yes, they are being discriminated against.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Rush said you libs were not going to be happy with gay marriage. Polygamy was next!

Thanks for proving him right!

Learn to read.

Polygamy was a core religious belief of the Mormon church.

Why wasn't it protected by the 1st Amendment?

See if you can give a straight answer to that question. I'm betting you can't.

The Supreme Court already did:

"The first Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of free exercise was Reynolds v. U.S. (1878), in which the Court upheld a federal law banning polygamy over objections by Mormons who claimed that the practice was their religious duty. The Court in Reynolds distinguished between religious belief and religious conduct or action, stating that Congress was “deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive to good order.” Recognizing the religious defense, the Court said, would “permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.” While the government could not punish citizens because of their religious beliefs, it could regulate religiously motivated conduct, provided that it had a rational basis for doing so. This “rational basis test” became the standard for determining whether a law that impinged on a religious practice violated the free-exercise clause. As that standard was easy for the government to satisfy, for almost a century the courts generally rejected religious-freedom claims against generally applicable laws."
Free-exercise clause overview First Amendment Center news commentary analysis on free speech press religion assembly petition

You can cite as many court cases as you want.

I can also bring up the man BAD decisions by the court like Separate but Equal, that blacks aren't citizens, or how about Roe V. Wade.

Or Bush v. Gore, that liberals hate.

You can cite as many court cases as you want.

They don't take precedent over the 1st Amendment.

They establish First Amendment precedent, dumbass. The Supreme Court determines when a law violates the First Amendment. The First Amendment is not absolute. It would not protect a radical Muslim who killed his daughter because she abandoned her faith because he did so based on his view of his religious obligation.

No, the USSC doesn't, according to the Constitution.

That was Madison vs. Marbury and the USSC just did a power grab in claiming that last word on the Constitution for themselves.

Another example of bad law by passed by an out of control USSC.

It should have been resisted a lontg time ago.

So after we get rid of the Supreme Court, how do you plan to strike down state laws that you believe violate the 1st amendment religious protections, or violate the 2nd amendment?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The thing is, people don't have to believe what you think they should believe. That does not change the validity of their belief.

NO, guy, the problem is they are using a selective reading of their holy book in order to rationalize their bigotry.

That didn't fly 50 years ago when Southern Bigots tried to exclude blacks from their hotels and it doesn't fly now.

Which is why subjective religious dogma is legally irrelevant.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Learn to read.

Polygamy was a core religious belief of the Mormon church.

Why wasn't it protected by the 1st Amendment?

See if you can give a straight answer to that question. I'm betting you can't.

The Supreme Court already did:

"The first Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of free exercise was Reynolds v. U.S. (1878), in which the Court upheld a federal law banning polygamy over objections by Mormons who claimed that the practice was their religious duty. The Court in Reynolds distinguished between religious belief and religious conduct or action, stating that Congress was “deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive to good order.” Recognizing the religious defense, the Court said, would “permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.” While the government could not punish citizens because of their religious beliefs, it could regulate religiously motivated conduct, provided that it had a rational basis for doing so. This “rational basis test” became the standard for determining whether a law that impinged on a religious practice violated the free-exercise clause. As that standard was easy for the government to satisfy, for almost a century the courts generally rejected religious-freedom claims against generally applicable laws."
Free-exercise clause overview First Amendment Center news commentary analysis on free speech press religion assembly petition

You can cite as many court cases as you want.

I can also bring up the man BAD decisions by the court like Separate but Equal, that blacks aren't citizens, or how about Roe V. Wade.

Or Bush v. Gore, that liberals hate.

You can cite as many court cases as you want.

They don't take precedent over the 1st Amendment.

They establish First Amendment precedent, dumbass. The Supreme Court determines when a law violates the First Amendment. The First Amendment is not absolute. It would not protect a radical Muslim who killed his daughter because she abandoned her faith because he did so based on his view of his religious obligation.

No, the USSC doesn't, according to the Constitution.

That was Madison vs. Marbury and the USSC just did a power grab in claiming that last word on the Constitution for themselves.

Another example of bad law by passed by an out of control USSC.

It should have been resisted a lontg time ago.

So after we get rid of the Supreme Court, how do you plan to strike down state laws that you believe violate the 1st amendment religious protections, or violate the 2nd amendment?

This is how liberal argue when they are losing.

They create false alternatives and straw men and expect you to fall for the premise of arguing from those false narratives.

Would you please show where I called for "getting rid" of the USSC.


When you do that, let me know.

 

[teapartysamurai]

The thing is, people don't have to believe what you think they should believe. That does not change the validity of their belief.

NO, guy, the problem is they are using a selective reading of their holy book in order to rationalize their bigotry.

That didn't fly 50 years ago when Southern Bigots tried to exclude blacks from their hotels and it doesn't fly now.

Which is why subjective religious dogma is legally irrelevant.

Maybe to you, little fascist, but NOT to the 1st Amendment.

 

[paddymurphy]

Rush said you libs were not going to be happy with gay marriage. Polygamy was next!

Thanks for proving him right!

Learn to read.

Polygamy was a core religious belief of the Mormon church.

Why wasn't it protected by the 1st Amendment?

See if you can give a straight answer to that question. I'm betting you can't.

The Supreme Court already did:

"The first Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of free exercise was Reynolds v. U.S. (1878), in which the Court upheld a federal law banning polygamy over objections by Mormons who claimed that the practice was their religious duty. The Court in Reynolds distinguished between religious belief and religious conduct or action, stating that Congress was “deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive to good order.” Recognizing the religious defense, the Court said, would “permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.” While the government could not punish citizens because of their religious beliefs, it could regulate religiously motivated conduct, provided that it had a rational basis for doing so. This “rational basis test” became the standard for determining whether a law that impinged on a religious practice violated the free-exercise clause. As that standard was easy for the government to satisfy, for almost a century the courts generally rejected religious-freedom claims against generally applicable laws."
Free-exercise clause overview First Amendment Center news commentary analysis on free speech press religion assembly petition

You can cite as many court cases as you want.

I can also bring up the man BAD decisions by the court like Separate but Equal, that blacks aren't citizens, or how about Roe V. Wade.

Or Bush v. Gore, that liberals hate.

You can cite as many court cases as you want.

They don't take precedent over the 1st Amendment.

They establish First Amendment precedent, dumbass. The Supreme Court determines when a law violates the First Amendment. The First Amendment is not absolute. It would not protect a radical Muslim who killed his daughter because she abandoned her faith because he did so based on his view of his religious obligation.

No, the USSC doesn't, according to the Constitution.

That was Madison vs. Marbury and the USSC just did a power grab in claiming that last word on the Constitution for themselves.

Another example of bad law by passed by an out of control USSC.

It should have been resisted a lontg time ago.

Where in the constitution does it say that the Supreme Court does not have the right to review laws to determine if they violate the constitution? Never mind looking. It says nothing like that. I would discuss Marbury v. Madison with you but you have never read it.

 

[paddymurphy]

Where does religious freedom end, and secular law take over?

At the 1ST AMENDMENT, which says you can't pass a law restricting the freedom of religion.

And the law banning discrimination against gay people was not passed to restrict freedom of religion. It was passed to ban discrimination.

How about Christians being discriminated against if they stand by their beliefs in viloation of the 1st Amendment?

They are not being discriminated against. They are being treated just like everyone else and are required to follow a law that applies to everyone equally. You want everyone but Christians to be discriminated against by allows Christians to not follow a law everyone else must follow.

When they are being fined for practicing their religion in accordance with the 1st Amendment, then yes, they are being discriminated against.

They are not practicing their religion. Baking a cake is not a religious practice. Moreover, you seem not to understand that to discriminate you have to treat people differently. The law treats everyone the same.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Rush said you libs were not going to be happy with gay marriage. Polygamy was next!

Thanks for proving him right!

Learn to read.

Polygamy was a core religious belief of the Mormon church.

Why wasn't it protected by the 1st Amendment?

See if you can give a straight answer to that question. I'm betting you can't.

The Supreme Court already did:

"The first Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of free exercise was Reynolds v. U.S. (1878), in which the Court upheld a federal law banning polygamy over objections by Mormons who claimed that the practice was their religious duty. The Court in Reynolds distinguished between religious belief and religious conduct or action, stating that Congress was “deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive to good order.” Recognizing the religious defense, the Court said, would “permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.” While the government could not punish citizens because of their religious beliefs, it could regulate religiously motivated conduct, provided that it had a rational basis for doing so. This “rational basis test” became the standard for determining whether a law that impinged on a religious practice violated the free-exercise clause. As that standard was easy for the government to satisfy, for almost a century the courts generally rejected religious-freedom claims against generally applicable laws."
Free-exercise clause overview First Amendment Center news commentary analysis on free speech press religion assembly petition

You can cite as many court cases as you want.

I can also bring up the man BAD decisions by the court like Separate but Equal, that blacks aren't citizens, or how about Roe V. Wade.

Or Bush v. Gore, that liberals hate.

You can cite as many court cases as you want.

They don't take precedent over the 1st Amendment.

They establish First Amendment precedent, dumbass. The Supreme Court determines when a law violates the First Amendment. The First Amendment is not absolute. It would not protect a radical Muslim who killed his daughter because she abandoned her faith because he did so based on his view of his religious obligation.

No, the USSC doesn't, according to the Constitution.

That was Madison vs. Marbury and the USSC just did a power grab in claiming that last word on the Constitution for themselves.

Another example of bad law by passed by an out of control USSC.

It should have been resisted a lontg time ago.

You're as ignorant as you are ridiculous.

 

[paddymurphy]

The Supreme Court already did:

"The first Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of free exercise was Reynolds v. U.S. (1878), in which the Court upheld a federal law banning polygamy over objections by Mormons who claimed that the practice was their religious duty. The Court in Reynolds distinguished between religious belief and religious conduct or action, stating that Congress was “deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive to good order.” Recognizing the religious defense, the Court said, would “permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.” While the government could not punish citizens because of their religious beliefs, it could regulate religiously motivated conduct, provided that it had a rational basis for doing so. This “rational basis test” became the standard for determining whether a law that impinged on a religious practice violated the free-exercise clause. As that standard was easy for the government to satisfy, for almost a century the courts generally rejected religious-freedom claims against generally applicable laws."
Free-exercise clause overview First Amendment Center news commentary analysis on free speech press religion assembly petition

You can cite as many court cases as you want.

I can also bring up the man BAD decisions by the court like Separate but Equal, that blacks aren't citizens, or how about Roe V. Wade.

Or Bush v. Gore, that liberals hate.

You can cite as many court cases as you want.

They don't take precedent over the 1st Amendment.

They establish First Amendment precedent, dumbass. The Supreme Court determines when a law violates the First Amendment. The First Amendment is not absolute. It would not protect a radical Muslim who killed his daughter because she abandoned her faith because he did so based on his view of his religious obligation.

No, the USSC doesn't, according to the Constitution.

That was Madison vs. Marbury and the USSC just did a power grab in claiming that last word on the Constitution for themselves.

Another example of bad law by passed by an out of control USSC.

It should have been resisted a lontg time ago.

So after we get rid of the Supreme Court, how do you plan to strike down state laws that you believe violate the 1st amendment religious protections, or violate the 2nd amendment?

This is how liberal argue when they are losing.

They create false alternatives and straw men and expect you to fall for the premise of arguing from those false narratives.

Would you please show where I called for "getting rid" of the USSC.


When you do that, let me know.

And conservatives argue by claiming that the Supreme Court has been getting it wrong since 1803.